Effect of Nitrogen on Growth and Yield of Sugarcane

Journal American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Vol. 32, 2012

Effect of Nitrogen on Growth and Yield of Sugarcane Muhammad Farrukh Saleem1*, Abdul Ghaffar2, Shakeel Ahmad Anjum1, Mumtaz Akhtar Cheema1, and Muhammd Faisal Bilal1 1 2

Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan Sugarcane Research Institute, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan *Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT

Sugarcane is a tropical plant and requires a warm, humid climate for good growth, but is grown in the subtropics of Pakistan with semiarid climate. Sugarcane responds well to higher N application rates and this study utilized crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency as two important criteria of crop performance to identify optimum nitrogen levels. A field experiment was conducted for two consecutive years at Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan. The treatments were comprised of three nitrogen rates (recommended, 168 kg ha-1; 50% more than recommended, 252 kg ha-1 and 100% more than recommended, 336 kg ha-1) applied full at planting or at 90 days after planting (DAP) or in two equal splits, i.e., 50% at planting and 50% at 90 DAS. A control (no nitrogen) was also utilized. Results revealed significant effects of dose and time of nitrogen application on most studied parameters except commercial cane sugar (%). The maximum stripped cane yield and sugar yield were recorded when nitrogen at 252 kg ha-1 was applied in two equal splits, although high N rate (336 kg ha-1) was not inferior statistically. Crop growth rate and leaf area duration were maximized with high nitrogen dose applied in two equal splits. Nitrogen use efficiencies also varied greatly among different treatments. The results suggest a need for revision of already recommended N rates in sugarcane growing areas of Pakistan and possible other areas of the world.

INTRODUCTION Sugarcane is a tropical plant (Humbert, 1968) and requires warm, humid climate for good growth. However, it is being grown throughout the sub tropical land surface of earth between latitude 30o N and 35o S; it can be grown in a wide variety of soil types ranging from sandy loam to heavy clay (Nazir, 1994). Pakistan lies in the sub tropics with semi arid climatic conditions where sugarcane is grown within an area of 1.029 million hectares with a total annual stripped cane production of 50.04 million tons giving an average stripped cane yield of 48.64 t ha-1 (Govt. of Pakistan, 2010). This yield is far lower than most of sugarcane growing countries; Guatemala (107.33 t ha-1), Egypt (90.24 t ha-1), Australia (86.66 t ha-1), Brazil (77.63 t ha-1), Mexico (75.49 t ha-1), Indonesia (72.55 t ha-1) etc. (FAO, 2009). A number of factors are responsible for low yield of sugarcane in Pakistan including scarcity of irrigation water, low plant population per unit area and imbalanced as well as inadequate use of fertilizers. Sugarcane is a long duration crop that requires a high quantity of 75

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects nutrients. Moreover, continuous planting of sugarcane in the same field depletes the soil nutrients. A crop having yield of 100 t ha-1 removes 207 kg N, 30 kg P2O5 and 233 kg K2O from the soil (Jagtap et al., 2006). Therefore these elements must be added in adequate quantities in the root zone of the crop to obtain higher yield. Among these elements N is the primary nutrient limiting sugarcane production (Wiedenfeld and Enciso, 2008) throughout the world. Differences in soils (Anderson, 1990), environmental factors (Knust, 1954) and sugarcane cultivars (Verna, 1965) limit the usefulness of research from other areas. World recommended rates of N fertilizer for sugarcane production vary between 45 and 300 kg ha-1 yr-1 (Srivastava and Suarez, 1992) Dry matter accumulation increased significantly when a high N rate (225 kg ha-1) was compared with 175 or 150 kg N ha-1 (Lal, 1991). The large amounts of N fertilizer applied to most cropping systems support high yields but may result in excessive N levels in groundwater or surface water (Robinson et al., 2007). Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) has been well studied in many crop species, especially grain crops, where kernel N content is a key harvest index. In contrast NUE in sugarcane has not been properly understood, since N is an insignificant component of the harvested product. However, increasing concerns about pollution from N run off due to excessive fertilization demand an improved understanding of NUE in sugarcane, so that applied N is effectively utilized (Whan et al., 2007). Moreover, unlike in cereals, the longer span of sugarcane growth presents different challenges for efficient N use. For many locations, the depletion of plant-available soil N over time justifies the need for split application of the yearly total N rate. Wiedenfeld (1997) observed a progressive decline in soil NO3-N concentration with delay in soil sampling after N fertilizer application. Proper land management programs should include the establishment of fertilization regimes that optimize growth with minimum nutrient leaching (Van Miegroet et al., 1994). These involve adjusting fertilizer application rates and frequencies to maximize N utilization while minimizing N leaching from the rooting zone (Lee and Jose, 2005). Stanford and Ayers (1964) recommended that only a small proportion of the N fertilizer be applied in the establishment period of a 24-month cane crop. Knust (1954) reported that split N fertilizer application on a 12-month cane crop, however, may delay maturity and decrease sucrose (Samuels and Alers-Alers, 1963). Early N fertilizer application resulted in lower cane yield, while the late fertilizer application resulted in lower sugar yield due to lower juice quality rather than any loss in growth (Wiedenfeld, 1997). Application of the recommended dose of fertilizer (150 kg ha-1) in two equal splits either at planting and within 30 days after planting (DAP) or at 30 and 60 DAP benefited the crop so that more millable canes were produced at harvest which ultimately resulted in increased cane and sugar yield (Lakshmi et al., 2003). Application of N in splits increased the fertilization program cost, but its use was justified by increased sugar yield (Obreza and Pitts, 1998). In Pakistan around 85 kg ha-1 of N, 21 kg ha-1 of P2O5 and 0.73 kg ha-1 of K2O are applied (Govt. of Pakistan, 2003) which seems to be inadequate and imbalanced to optimize the production potential of the crop. With the introduction of highyielding varieties with high-nutrient requirements and intensive, exhaustive crop rotation, sugarcane is becoming more responsive to higher levels of fertilizer than recommended rates. The present study has been designed to explore the production potential of spring planted sugarcane at higher rates of N and to improve the nutrient use efficiency of sugarcane by optimizing the rate and timing of N application.

76


MATERIALS AND METHODS A field experiment was conducted for two consecutive years during the springs of 2006 and 2007 at Sugarcane Research Institute, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan (31o25’ N, 73o09’ E). Physico-chemical analysis of experimental soil was conducted before planting and after harvest of the crop for each experimental unit during both years. Soil samples did not differ significantly, for the studied parameters, among different treatments and between years. Therefore, average values are presented in Table 1. The soil analysis indicated that the experimental soil was a loam with slight alkaline reaction which represents most of the sugarcane growing area of Pakistan. The soil seemed to be productive without any problem for crop husbandry. The soil was medium in K but deficient in N, P and organic matter. Sugarcane plants were analyzed for determination of N uptake. The procedures used for physico-chemical analysis of all the aforementioned soil and plant samples are given in “Analysis manual of soil, plant and water” (Govt. of Pakistan, 1984). The experiment was comprised of ten treatments including no N (T1), 168 kg N ha-1 at planting (T2), 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS (T3), 84 kg N ha-1 at planting + 84 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS (T4), 252 kg N ha-1 at planting (T5), 252 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS (T6), 126 kg N ha-1 at planting + 126 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS (T7), 336 kg N ha-1 at planting (T8), 336 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS (T9) and 168 kg N ha-1 at planting + 168 kg N ha-1at 90 DAS (T10). The recommended N rate for sugarcane crop in Punjab province of Pakistan is 168 kg ha-1. The experiment was laid out according to a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) having three replications with a net plot size of 6 m x 8 m. Each year before seed bed preparation, pre-soaking irrigation of 10 cm depth was applied. When the soil reached the proper moisture level for planting, the seed bed was prepared by cultivating 2 times with a tractor mounted cultivator to a depth of 10-12 cm followed by leveling. Thereafter chiseling was done twice followed by leveling and finally trenches were made by use of a ridger and spaced 1.2 m apart. Sugarcane variety HSF-240 was sown on 5 March 2006 for the first year and 7 March 2007 for the second year. Seed rate of 75,000 double budded setts (DBS) per ha was used and it was planted end to end in two parallel rows within the trenches. Phosphorus (P) and potash (K) were each applied at 112 kg ha-1 in trenches at the time of planting in the form of SSP (Single Super Phosphate) and SOP (Sulfate of Potash) respectively, while N fertilizer was applied in the form of urea as per treatments. Insect pests were kept under the threshold level through chemical control. Chloropyriphos was applied @ 5 L ha-1 with the 1st irrigation after planting to control the termites. Carbofuran granules @ 35 kg ha-1 were applied at 90 days after planting to control borers. Weeds in the crop were controlled through the application of premixed formulation of Ametryn + Atrazine (@ 2 kg a.i. ha-1) five days after first irrigation with a knapsack sprayer and also with hoeing. In addition to rainfall, the crop received a total of fifteen irrigations (1500 mm) each year. 77

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects

The crop was harvested manually at its physiological maturity (Brix = 20%) on 16 December 2006 and 18 December 2007. Data on various growth and yield parameters of the crop were recorded by using standard procedures during the course of study. Number of millable canes was counted from 28.8 m2 and was converted to millable canes m-2. At harvest the length of ten randomly selected canes was measured from base (ground level) to the top (highest node) and then averaged. At harvest the diameter of ten randomly selected canes from the base, middle and top internodes was measured and averaged. Then diameter was converted to cane girth by using the following formula (Mali et al., 1982). Cane girth (cm) = diameter (cm) x 22/7 All stripped canes of each plot (28.8 m2) were weighed for stripped cane yield (t ha-1). Agronomic nutrient use efficiency (NUEA) was determined by the following formula (SSSP, 1994): Stripped cane yield F (kg ) − Stripped cane yield C (kg ) NUEA (kg kg-1) = Fertilizer nutrients applied (kg nutrients ) Total N uptake by shoots of crop in each treatment was converted into ha-1 and the physiological nutrient efficiency (NUEP) was determined by the formula (SSSP, 1994) as follow: NUEP (kg kg-1) =

Stripped cane yield F (kg ) − Stripped cane yield C (kg )

(

)

(

Nutrient uptake F kg ha - 1 − nutrient uptake C kg ha - 1

)

Where F = Fertilized crop C = Control crop Total sugar (t ha-1) was determined by the following formula: Stripped cane yield (t ha -1 ) x CCS% Total sugar (t ha-1) = 100 Where CCS = commercial cane sugar Commercial cane sugar (CCS %) was calculated by using the method of Spancer and Meade (1963). 3  F+ 5 1  F+ 3 CCS (%) = P 1 −  − B 1 −  2  100  2  100  P = Pol % in juice B = Brix % in juice F = Fiber % in juice Plants from an area of 0.6 m2 in each treatment were harvested at ground level on 30 day intervals. Fresh and dry weights of component fractions of plants (leaves and stalks) were determined. A sub sample of each fraction was taken to dry in oven at 70°C to constant weight.

78


Total shoot dry weight was obtained by summing weight of all components and converted to m-2. Also an appropriate sub sample (50 g) of green laminae was used to record leaf area using leaf area meter (Cl-202 Area meter ClD, Inc). From the measurement of leaf area and dry weights following parameters of growth were calculated: 1 Leaf area duration (LAD) (days) = (LAI 1 + LAI 2 ) × (t 2 − t 1 ) (Hunt, 1978) 2 Where LAI1 = Leaf area index at t1 LAI2 = Leaf area index at t2 t1 = Time of 1st observation t2 = Time of 2nd observation W − W1 Crop growth rate (CGR) (g m-2 day-1) = 2 (Hunt, 1978) t2 − t1 Where = Shoot dry weight m-2 at t1 W1 W2 = Shoot dry weight m-2 at t2 t1 = Time of 1st harvest = Time of 2nd harvest t2 Meteorological data Meteorological data for growing periods of the crop were collected from the Observatory, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC) unit, Ayub Agriculture Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan (Fig. 1). Statistical analysis and graphics Data collected from both experiments were statistically analyzed by the computer package MSTATC (Anonymous, 1986) and differences among the treatments’ means were compared for significance by using the Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test (DNMR) at the 5% probability level (Steel et al., 1997). STATISTICA-V-5.5 (developed by StatSoft) was used for contrast analysis. The computer package SPC (Software Publishing Corporation) Harvard Graphics was used to prepare the graphs. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Effect of varied dose and time of N application on number of millable canes (MC) m-2, cane length (CL), cane girth (CG) and stripped cane yield (SCY) was significant (P 38 °C) even if water is not limiting (Inman-Bamper, 2004). The real cane quality is reflected by its commercial cane sugar percentage. Data presented in Table 4a revealed non-significant effects of dose and time of N application on percentage of commercial cane sugar (CCS %) of spring planted sugarcane during both the years (2006 and 2007). Data exhibited a non-significant numerical increase in CCS % up to 168 kg N ha-1, either applied at planting, at 90 DAS or half at planting + half at 90 DAS, which then trended lower at higher levels of N in 2006 and 2007. This non-significant effect on CCS %

80


might be due to non-significant effects on brix, sucrose and fiber (data not shown but used in CCS calculations) percentages. Jeyaraman and Alagudurai (2003), Patel et al. (2004) and Kadam et al. (2005) also reported non-significant difference in CCS % at varied levels of N. While Ali et al. (2002) noted a significant decrease in CCS % at higher rates of N. Gawander et al. (2004) found that cane yield and sucrose content are significantly interrelated with applied fertilizers. Effect of dose and time of N application were significant on total sugar yield, which is cumulative effect of stripped cane yield (t ha-1) and CCS (%). In 2006, the maximum sugar yield (12.8 t ha-1) was recorded in T7 (126 kg N ha-1 at planting + 126 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS) and it was statistically equal with T10 (168 kg N ha-1 at planting + 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS) which produced 12.1 t ha-1 sugar yield. The minimum sugar yield (5.5 t ha-1) was measured in T1 (no N). Almost similar results were noted in 2007. Contrast analysis exhibited that all the contrasts were significant except for C3 which was non-significant where comparison of 252 kg N ha-1 with 336 kg N ha-1 was made during both the years i.e. 2006 and 2007. These significant differences in sugar yield were ascribed to different stripped cane yield (table 3). Differences in sugar yield in response to different fertilizer levels were also reported by Afzal et al. (2003); Jeyaraman and Alagudurai (2003); Raskar and Bhoi (2003); Sinha et al. (2005) and Jagtap et al. (2006). Contrary to that, Devi et al. (1990) and Ramesh and Varghese (2000) did not record any appreciable difference in sugar yield due to different fertilizer treatments while a numeric increase in sugar yield with increasing N rate at each recorded harvest has been reported by Muchovej and Newman (2004). Data given in Table 4a revealed significant effect of dose and time of N application on agronomic nutrient use efficiency (NUEA) of sugarcane during both crop years (2006 and 2007). In 2006, significantly maximum NUEA (241 kg kg-1 of N) was recorded in T7 (126 kg N ha-1 at planting + 126 kg N ha-1 90 DAS), followed by T4 (84 kg N ha-1 at planting + 84 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS) giving NUEA of 194 kg kg-1 of N while minimum NUEA (83 kg kg-1 of N) was observed in T3 (168 kg N ha-1 of 90 DAS) which was statistically equal with T9 (336 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS) and T8 (336 kg N ha-1 at planting) with a NUEA of 102 kg kg-1 of N and 123 kg kg-1 of N, respectively. Almost similar results were found in 2007. All contrasts were significant during both years (2006 and 2007) except C2 (168 kg N ha-1 VS 336 kg N ha-1) for NUEA. Significant effects on physiological nutrient use efficiency (NUEP) were observed during both crop years (2006 and 2007). In 2006 the maximum NUEP (377 kg kg-1 of N) was recorded in T7 (126 kg N ha-1 at planting + 126 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS) which was statistically equal with T10 (168 kg N ha-1 at planting + 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS) and T4 (84 kg N ha-1 at planting +84 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS). During 2007, again the maximum NUEP of 384 kg kg-1 of N was noted in T7 and it was statistically equal with T10. The minimum NUEP was for T3 (168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS), during both years. All contrasts exhibited significant differences during both years except C3 (252 kg N ha-1 VS 336 kg N ha-1) in 2006 while C1 (168 kg N ha-1 VS 252 kg N ha-1), C2 (168 kg N ha-1 VS 336 kg N ha-1) and C3 (252 kg N ha-1 VS 336 kg N ha-1) in 2007 were nonsignificant. Maximum NUEA in T7 was perhaps due to more stripped cane yield. More NUEP might be attributed to better distribution of N throughout the crop with treatment T7. Sharma and Gupta (1991) reported that NUEP in sugarcane was significantly higher at higher fertilizer levels, however, the maximum N rates were higher in our study. Higher N rate may have made the 81

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects vegetation growth period longer and shortened the period of sugar accumulation. A better balance was achieved with a medium fertilizer dose (Koochekzadeh et al., 2009). Lee and Jose (2005) revealed that increasing N application rates raises N leaching without making any difference in woody plant growth. Periodic data regarding leaf area duration (LAD) as a function of dose and time of N application of spring planted sugarcane during 2006 and 2007 are depicted in Fig. 3. Visible differences in LAD at varied levels of N and time of its application were observed. However, the differences were less visible at the start and became more pronounced as the crop advanced towards physiological maturity. Higher and comparative total LAD values of 1260, 1259, 1250, 1222 and 1219 were recorded at T7 (126 kg N ha-1 at planting +126 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS), T10 (168 kg N ha-1 at planting +168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS), T8 (336 kg N ha-1 at planting), T5 (252 kg N ha-1 at planting) and T9 (336 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS), respectively, in 2006. An almost similar trend was noted in 2007. According to Gardner et al. (1988) LAD expresses the magnitude and persistence of the leaf area during the crop growth period. Increase in LAD with increasing N rate was attributed to more LAI. Increasing N rate resulted in increased LAI but the response was quadratic in a study by Wiedenfeld and Enciso (2008). Data pertaining to periodic crop growth rate (CGR) are depicted in Fig. 2 and revealed that the maximum crop growth rate was recorded up to 180 DAS during 2006 and in 2007. In 2006, the higher and nearly equivalent ACGR (average crop growth rate) values of 12.33 g m-2 d1 and 11.93 g m-2 d-1 were obtained at T7 (126 kg N ha-1 at planting + 126 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS) and T10 (168 kg N ha-1 at planting + 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS), respectively. The minimum ACGR (5.54 g m-2 d-1) was produced by T1 where no N was applied. Similar results were recorded during 2007. Variability in genetic potential and efficient utilization of applied inputs in a particular environment is indicated by crop growth rate (Gardner et al., 1988). Different ACGR in sugarcane grown at different N levels and times of its application was ascribed to variable biomass production (Robinson et al., 2007). Singh et al. (2001) recorded maximum ACGR at a higher dose of N. In 2006 the ACGR was more than 2007 because of more rainfall and relative humidity during the former year (Fig. 1). This study indicated better responses of sugarcane crops to high N application rates, when applied in splits on a loam soil, than currently recommended. In conclusion, N requirements of sugarcane crops must be reconsidered with special reference to its application timing and type of soil. REFERENCES Afzal, M., A.A. Chattha and M. Zafar. 2003. Role of different NPK doses and seed rates on cane yield and quality of HSF-240. Pak. Sugar J. 18: 72-75. Ahmad, Z., S. Khan, S. Rahman and G. Ahmad. 1995. Effect of N levels and setts density on various agronomic characteristics of sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J. 9: 7-11. Ali, F.G., M.A. Iqbal and A.A. Chattha. 2002. Cane yield response of two cane varieties to different fertilizer levels and seeding density. Pak. Sugar J. 17: 52-56.

82


Anderson, D.L. 1990. A review: soils, nutrition and fertility practices of the Florida sugarcane industry. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. J. 49: 78-87. Anonymous. 1986. MSTATC. Microcomputer Statistical Program. Michigan State University, Michigan, Lansing, USA. Bangar, K.S., and Sharma, S.R. 1992. Response of sugarcane varieties to different fertility levels in Madhya Pradesh. Cooperative Sugar 24: 103-104. Bangar, K.S., A. Miani and S.R. Sharma. 1994. Effect of fertilizer N and pressmud cake on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane. Crop Res. 8: 23-27. Bastidas, L.R., G.A. Segovia and C.A. Venezusla. 1989. Yield response of sugarcane cultivar PR-980 to N, P and K fertilizer in a Mallisolin the basis of Lake. Valenea 7: 33-44. Devi, C., K.L. Rao and D.V.M. Raju. 1990. The effect of row space and N on yield and quality of early maturing sugarcane cultivars. Ind. Sugar. 40: 541-544. FAO, 2009. FAO statistical yearbook 2009 (www.fao.org). Gana, A.K. 2008. Determination of optimal rate of N for chewing sugarcane production in the Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. Sugar Technology 10: 278-279. Gardner, F.P., R.B. Pearce and R.L. Mitchell. 1988. Physiology of crop plants. Scientific Publisher, Ratanda Roward, Jhodhpur, India. Gawander, J.S., P. Gangaiya and R.J. Morrison. 2004. Potassium responses and budgets in the growth of sugarcane in Fijii. Sugar Cane International 22: 3-8. Govt. of Pakistan. 1984. Analysis manual of soil, plant and water. Soil Fertility and Soil Testing Institute, Deptt. of Agri. Punjab, Pakistan. Govt. of Pakistan. 2003. Economic survey of Pakistan 2002-03. Ministry of food agriculture and livestock, Federal Bureau of Statistics, Islamabad, Pakistan, pp 17. Govt. of Pakistan. 2010. Economic survey of Pakistan, 2009-10. Ministry of food agriculture and livestock, Federal Bureau of Statistics, Islamabad, Pakistan, pp 22. Humbert, R.P. 1968. The Growing of Sugarcane. Elsevier publishing company, New York, USA. Hunt, R. 1978. Plant growth analysis. Edward Arnold, UK. Inman-Bamper, N.G. 2004. Sugarcane water stress criteria for irrigation and drying off. Field Crops Res. 89: 107-122. 83

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects Jagtap, S.M., M.B. JadhavI and R.V. Kulkarm. 2006. Effect of levels of NPK on yield and quality of sugarcane (cv. Co. 7527). Ind. Sugar. 56: 35-40. Jeyaraman, S., and S. Alagudurai. 2003. N and K management for yield maximization in sugarcane. Ind. Sugar. 52: 987-989. Kadam, B.S., D.M. Veer, R.P. Pawar, R.S. Bhoge and S.M. More. 2005. N, P and K requirements for promising new sugarcane genotypes under vertisol for South Maharashter. Cooperative Sugar. 37: 53-56. Knust, H.G. 1954. Singles vs split dressings of sulfate of ammonia. A.R. Qd. Bur. Sugar Exp. Sta. pp 45-46. Kolage, A.K., M.S. Pilani, M.S. Munde and PG. Bhoi. 2001. Effect of fertilizer levels on yield and quality of new sugarcane genotype. Ind. Sugar. 51: 375-382. Koochekzadeh, A., G. Fathi, M.H. Gharineh, S.A. Siadat, S. Jafari and K. Alami-Saeid. 2009. Impacts of rate and split application of N fertilizer on sugarcane quality. Inter. J. Agric. Res. 4: 116-123. Lakshmi, M.B., T.C. Devi, I.V.N. Rao and K.L. Rao. 2003. Effect of time of N application on yield and quality of early maturing sugarcane varieties under rainfed conditions. Sugar Technol. 5: 73-76. Lal, B. 1991. Effect of N levels on tillering of spring planted sugarcane under different moisture regimes. In Proceeding 53rd Annual Convention Sugar Technology Association India. Lee, K.H., and S. Jose. 2005. Nitrate leaching cottonwood and loblolly pine biomass plantations along a N fertilization gradient. J. Agric. Ecosystem Environ. 105: 615-623. Mahboob, A., F.G. Ali, M. Saeed, and S. Afghan. 2000. Effect of moisture regimes and fertilizer levels on yield and yield parameters of spring sugarcane. Pak. Sugar J. 15: 2-6. Mali, S.A., K.R. Pawer and D.N. Borulkar. 1982. Yield contributing characters of three cultivars of seasonal sugarcane as influenced by N and P levels. Ind. Sugar. 32:95-104. Mishra, P.J., P.K. Mishra, S. Biswal, S.K. Panda and M.K. Mishra. 2004. Studies on nutritional management in sugarcane seed crop of coastal Orissa. Ind. Sugar. 54:443-446. Muchovej, R.M., and P.R. Newman. 2004. N fertilization of sugarcane on a sandy soil: I. Yield and leaf nutrient concentration. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 24:210-224. Nazir, M.S. 1994. Sugarcane. In: Crop production. E. Bashir and Bantel R. (Eds.). National Book Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan, pp 421-422. Obreza, T.A., D.L. Anderson and D.J. Pitts. 1998. Water and N management of sugarcane grown on sandy, high-water-table soil. Soi. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62: 992-999.

84


Patel, M.L., D.R. Delvadia, L.N. Baraiya and R.A. Patel. 2004. Influence of N, P and K on growth, quality, yield and economics of sugarcane cv. CO-N-91132 in middle Gujrat condition. Ind. Sugar 54: 587-592. Ramesh, V., and S. Varghese. 2000. Effect of fertilizer levels of N, P and K on the yield and juice quality of sugarcane. Ind. Sugar 50: 301-302. Raskar, B.S., and P.G. Bhoi. 2003. Response of sugarcane to planting materials, inter-row spacing and fertilizer levels under drip irrigation. Ind. Sugar 53: 685-690. Robinson, N., A. Fletcher, A. Whan, C. Critchley, N. Von Wiren, P. Lakshmanan and S. Schmidt. 2007. Sugarcane genotypes differ in internal nitrogen use efficiency. Func. Plant Biol. 34: 1122-1129. Samuels, G., and S. Alers-Alers. 1963. Effect of time of N application on sucrose content of sugarcane ratoons. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 48: 304307. Shafshak, S.A., I.H. EL-Geddaway, S.A.H. Allam and G.S. EL-Sayed. 2001. Effect of planting densities and N fertilizer on: 1 growth criteria, Juice quality and chemical constituents of some sugarcane varieties. Pak. Sugar J. 16: 2-11. Sharma, O.L., and P.C. Gupta. 1991. Effect of levels of irrigation, N and methods of planting on N uptake and dry matter production of sugarcane. Ind. Sugar 41: 611-613. Singh, H., M.L. Kapoor and K.K. Vastist. 2004. Optimum time and method of fertilizer N application in spring planted sugarcane. Ind. Sugar 54: 363-370. Singh, S.N., D.C. Chaudhary, R.K. Singh and H.N. Singh. 2001. Effect of planting geometry and N level on morpho-physiological characters of sugarcane. Ind. Sugar 51:103-108. Singha, D.D. 2002. Nutrient requirement and time of application for sugarcane seed crop. Ind. Sugar 51:875-880. Sinha, V.P., H. Singh and B.K. Singh. 2005. Effect of genotype and fertility levels on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane under rainfed conditions. Ind. Sugar 55:23-26. Spencer, G.L., and G.P. Meade. 1963. Cane sugar hand book. 9th ed., G.P. Meade. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Srivastava, S.C., and N.R. Suarez. 1992. Sugarcane. In: World fertilizer use manual, W. Wichmann, ed. BASF AG, Germany, pp 257-266. SSSP, 1994. Efficient Use of Plant Nutrients. In: Proceedings of Fourth National Congress of Soil Science, Islamabad, May 24-26, 1992. Soi. Sci. Soc. Pak. pp 3. 85

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects Stanford, G., and A.S. Ayres. 1964. Factors influencing the efficiency of fertilizer use by sugarcane. Rep. 22nd Ann. Conf. Hawaii Sugar Tech. 1963, pp 197-202. Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics. Pages: 400-428. In: A biometrical approach. 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, USA. Thomas, J.R., A.W. Scott and R.P. Wiedenfeld. 1985. Fertilizer requirement of sugarcane in Texas. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 4: 62-72. Van Miegroet, H., R.J. Norby and T.J. Tschaplinski. 1994. N fertilization strategies in a short rotation sycamore plantation. For. Echol. Manage. 63:13-24. Verna, H.P. 1965. Studies on the inter-relation levels of N and water duty in sugarcane varieties planted in spring. Ind. Sugarcane J. 9:219-222. Whan, A.P., N. Robinson, A.T. Fletcher, K.S. Aitken, P. Lakshmanan and S. Schmidt. 2007. Understanding nitrogen use efficiency in sugarcane: A quantitative genetice approach. Plant and animal genomes XV Conference, January 13-17, 2007. Wiedenfeld, B., and J. Enciso. 2008. Sugarcane responses to irrigation and N in semiarid South Texas. Agron. J. 100: 665-671. Wiedenfeld, R. 1997. Sugarcane responses to N fertilizer application on clay soils. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 17: 14-27.

86


Table 1. Soil analysis pH

EC(dSm-1)

N (%)

P (ppm)

K (ppm)

OM (%)

Before planting

7.8

1.4

0.04

8.1

126.4

0.91

After harvest

7.9

1.4

0.04

7.2

117.3

0.84

87

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects Table 2. P values for growth, yield and N use efficiency of sugarcane as affected by dose and time of N application. Contrasts Millable canes Cane length Cane girth Stripped cane yield Commercial cane sugar Sugar yield Agronomic nitrogen use efficiency Physiological nitrogen use efficiency Leaf area duration Crop growth rate

2006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4657 0.0000 0.0000

2007 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4031 0.0000 0.0000

0.0003

0.0067

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

88


Table 3. Effect of rate and time of N application on growth and yield of sugarcane. a) Comparison of treatments’ means Treatments MC (m-2) CL (cm) CG (cm) SCY (t ha-1) 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 T1 7.8 c 7.7 d 187 f 177 f 6.46 f 6.24 f 47 f 42 f T2 10.1b 9.8 bc 214 def 208 de 6.90 e 6.78 e 73 de 66 de T3 10.1b 9.7 c 200 ef 193 e f 7.11 de 6.97 de 61 e 53 ef T4 10.0 b 10.0 bc 230 cde 225 cd 7.27 d 7.15 d 79 cd 73 cd T5 11.7 ab 11.4 abc 250 bc 245 bc 7.58 bc 7.48 bc 90 bc 84 bc T6 11.4 ab 10.9 abc 233 cd 228 cd 7.55 c 7.42 c 84 cd 76 cd T7 12.9 a 12.4 a 285 a 278 a 8.01 a 7.78 a 108 a 101 a T8 11.4 ab 11.4 abc 249 bc 242 c 7.79 abc 7.67 ab 88 c 81 bcd T9 11.4 ab 10.7 abc 230 cde 225 cd 7.64 bc 7.57 abc 81 cd 73 cd T10 12.3 a 11.9 ab 274 ab 266 b 7.81 ab 7.69 ab 103 ab 96 ab SE 0.51 0.63 9.3 7.5 0.076 0.067 4.5 4.8 Means in a column not sharing the same letters differ significantly from each other at 5% probability level as per DNMR. T1 = No N (control), T2 = 168 kg N ha-1 at planting, T3 = 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T4 = 84 kg N ha-1 at planting + 84 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T5 = 252 kg N ha-1 at planting, T6 = 252 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T7 = 126 kg N ha-1 at planting + 126 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T8 = 336 kg N ha-1 at planting, T9 = 336 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T10 = 168 kg N ha-1 at planting + 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS b) Meaningful orthogonal contrasts Contrasts MC (m-2) 200 6 ** ** NS NS

200 7 ** ** NS NS

CL (cm) 200 6 ** ** NS *

200 7 ** ** NS *

CG (cm) 200 6 ** ** NS *

200 7 ** ** NS **

SCY (t ha1 ) 200 200 6 7 ** ** ** ** NS NS * *

C1 = 168 VS 252 kg N ha-1 C 2 = 168 VS 336 kg N ha-1 C3 = 252 VS 336 kg N ha-1 C4 = All N at planting VS all at 90DAS C5 = All N at planting VS splits NS NS ** ** ** ** ** ** C6 = All N at 90DAS VS splits NS NS ** ** ** ** ** ** MC = millable canes, CL = cane length, CG = cane girth (cm), SCY = stripped cane yield *, ** = significant at 1 and 5 % probability, respectively. NS = non significant

89

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects Table 4. Effect of rate and time of N application on cane sugar and nitrogen use efficiency in sugarcane. a) Comparison of treatments’ means Treatments CCS (%) SY (t ha-1) NUEa(kg kg-1 of N) NUEp(kg kg-1 of N) 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 T1 11.81 11.60 5.5 e 4.9 e 0f 0e _ _ T2 12.33 12.18 9.0 cd 8.1 cd 157 bc 143 bc 292 bc 316 bc T3 12.22 12.09 7.4 d 6. 5 de 83 e 65 d 224 d 219 e T4 12.24 12.16 9.7 c 8.9 c 194 b 180 ab 328 ab 332 bc T5 11.88 11.75 10.7 bc 9.9 bc 172 b 165 b 297 bc 290 cd T6 11.75 11.77 9.9 c 9.0 c 147 bcd 135 bc 279 bc 260 de T7 11.85 11.95 12.8 a 12.1 a 241 a 233 a 377 a 384 a T8 11.54 11.37 10.2 c 9.3 c 123 cde 116 bcd 294 bc 283 cd T9 11.72 11.74 9.5 c 8.6 c 102 de 91 cd 276 c 246 de T10 11.76 11.78 12.1 ab 11.3 ab 167 bc 160 b 366 a 363 ab SE 0.379 0.355 0.58 0.56 14.9 19.6 16.5 16.2 Means in a column not sharing the same letters differ significantly from each other at 5% probability level as per DNMR. T1 = No N (control), T2 = 168 kg N ha-1 at planting, T3 = 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T4 = 84 kg N ha-1 at planting + 84 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T5 = 252 kg N ha-1 at planting, T6 = 252 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T7 = 126 kg N ha-1 at planting + 126 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T8 = 336 kg N ha-1 at planting, T9 = 336 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS, T10 = 168 kg N ha-1 at planting + 168 kg N ha-1 at 90 DAS b) Meaningful orthogonal contrasts Contrasts

SY CCS NUEa NUEp 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 C1 = 168 VS 252 kg N ha-1 ** ** NS NS ** ** * NS C 2 = 168 VS 336 kg N ha-1 ** ** NS NS NS NS * NS -1 C3 = 252 VS 336 kg N ha NS NS NS NS ** ** NS NS C4 = All N at planting VS all at 90DAS * ** NS NS * * * ** C5 = All N at planting VS splits ** ** NS NS * ** ** ** C6 = All N at 90DAS VS splits ** ** NS NS ** ** ** ** SY = sugar yield, CCS = commercial cane sugar, NUEa = agronomic nitrogen use efficiency, NUEp = physiological nitrogen use efficiency *, ** = significant at 1 and 5 % probability, respectively. NS = non significant

90


R.Humidity.(%), Rainfall(mm)

De c

No v

O ct

Se p

Au g

M

M

Ju l

80 60 40 20 0

Ju n

20 15 10 5 0

ay

180 160 140 120 100

Ap r

45 40 35 30 25

ar

Temperature (°C)

(a)

Months

R. Humidity (%), Rainfall (mm)

De c

No v

O ct

Se p

Au g

Ju l

Ju n

M

M

ay

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Ap r

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

ar

Temperature (°C)

(b)

Months Maximum temperature

Minimum temperature

relative humidity

Rainfall

Fig. 1 Meteorological data at AARI, Faisalabad, Pakistan, (a) 2006 and (b) 2007

91

Saleem et al.: Nitrogen Effects

(a)

T1 T2

Crop growth rate (g m-2d-1)

20.00

T3 T4

16.00

T5 T6

12.00

T7 T8

8.00

T9 T10 SE

4.00 0.00 90

120

150

180

210

240

270

Days after sowing

(b) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 SE

Crop growth rate (g m-2d-1)

20.00

16.00

12.00

8.00

4.00

0.00 90

120

150

180

210

240

270

Days after sowing

Fig. 2 Periodic changes in crop growth rate of sugarcane (a) 2006 and (b) 2007

92


(a) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 SE

Leaf area duration ( days )

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 90

120

150

180

210

240

270

Days after sowing

(b)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 SE

Leaf area duration (days)

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 90

120

150

180

210

240

270

Days after sowing

Fig. 3 Periodic changes in leaf area duration of sugarcane (a) 2006 and (b) 2007 93